4 ms·

Looks like the costs are being driven by offering generous compensation and retirement packages to government employees. I don't see that changing.

Fede_V 9y ago
I'm not sure how you could call that generous give the col of SF. Do we just expect government employees to not be able to live in the city they work?
- refurb 9y ago
  There is a difference between a pension that allows you to live in SF and a crazy generous pension (that encourages gaming the system) that is far more extravagant than anything you'd find in the private sector (who have been moving away from pensions generally).
  - toomuchtodo 9y ago
    I don’t know why public sector workers should give ground on benefits simply because private sector workers have rolled over to corporate interests. If you don’t want a union, cool, but don’t complain about the outcome then. Comparing to private sector workers is disingenous.
    - Agustus 9y ago
      I don't know why the public should be forced to have a reduction in public services because the public sector rolled over political interests to their favor.
      - deleted 9y ago
        [deleted]
    - eldavido 9y ago
      Look, obviously you and I have pretty different ideology, I get that. But I think you should consider why union membership is declining in the US. It's not some giant right-wing conspiracy. It's because the structure of industry is changing, firms are getting smaller, and the overall economy is getting more competitive. It's not like all the employees just decided, hey, we should all voluntarily decide to take a worse deal, great idea, let's do it. What upsets me as a taxpayer is why this same thing doesn't apply in the public sector. Like, I get that teachers work hard, but if we paid by outcomes, the way any sane private-sector company does, half of teachers would just get fired. Look at any major big-city school district if you want to see the mediocrity in action, whether Chicago Public Schools (CPS), Oakland Unified, etc. So yeah, it seems a little unfair that one sector of the economy gets paid for being mediocre at best, and other fires people and demands performance. Yeah, I'm a little upset.
      - toomuchtodo 9y ago
        I can appreciate we have different viewpoints. I can appreciate that, as a taxpayer, you’re upset. I also see the issues with institutions like CPS (having lived in Chicago proper). I don't believe paying teachers for outcomes when outcomes are primarily driven by influences outside of a teacher's control [1], but that is a discussion for another thread. I don’t think it’s a secret I’m hard to the left. People first. That’s how empathy works, economic efficiency be damned. Are there issues with how pension systems are gamed? Certainly, and fixes need to be put in place (benefit systems should never have the capacity to be gamed). Should public sector workers have reduced benefits or salaries because the American public has allowed their representatives to hand all the gains to Corporate America? Absolutely not. We have slowly, over decades, mortgaged the future (at local, state, and federal levels, speaking specifically about the US). The bills are coming due, and everyone is surprisingly shocked. I can’t tell you what to do, but I have gotten involved in politics and intend to contribute to a solution. I encourage you to do the same. [1] https://www.mckinsey.com/industries/social-sector/our-insights/drivers-of-student-performance-insights-from-north-america https://www.mckinsey.com/industries/social-sector/our-insigh...
        eldavido 9y ago
- xienze 9y ago
  It’s a pension, you don’t have to live in the city to collect it. And a lot of those CA pensions are along the lines of “85% of your average salary over your last three years”, so guess what happens? Get a transfer to SF or LA and juice your average by doing ungodly amounts of overtime. Then fuck off and retire somewhere cheap pulling in 100k+ until you die. Pretty sweet setup, but local and state municipalities are screwed.
- bassman9000 9y ago
  http://sfdhr.org/benefits-overview http://sfdhr.org/benefits-overview https://mysfers.org/wp-content/uploads/Plan-Provisions-Misc-603.pdf https://mysfers.org/wp-content/uploads/Plan-Provisions-Misc-... Working 20y covers 100% health benefits when retiring. Working 20y allows you to retire at 53. Pension calculated averaging only the 3 best years. Regarding Do we just expect government employees to not be able to live in the city they work? Do they have more right than others to live in the city they work in? Because thousands commute to SF every day because they can't afford it. edit: formatting
- david38 9y ago
  I work in SF. There is no requirement I be able to afford to live there. Do no, I don't expect the employees to necessarily be able to live there. Ferrari mechanics cannot afford Ferraris. Stanford regular employees cannot afford to send their kids there, etc. So what?
anameaname 9y ago
It will change as SF's credit goes down the tubes. Unlike the federal government, there is a chance that SF could default on its loans. If they can't get a loan and they squeeze the rich out of the city, there won't be any money left.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
eldavido 9y ago
Just because it's promised doesn't mean it'll happen. Look at Illinois.

Fede_V 9y ago

I'm not sure how you could call that generous give the col of SF. Do we just expect government employees to not be able to live in the city they work?

refurb 9y ago
There is a difference between a pension that allows you to live in SF and a crazy generous pension (that encourages gaming the system) that is far more extravagant than anything you'd find in the private sector (who have been moving away from pensions generally).
- toomuchtodo 9y ago
  I don’t know why public sector workers should give ground on benefits simply because private sector workers have rolled over to corporate interests. If you don’t want a union, cool, but don’t complain about the outcome then. Comparing to private sector workers is disingenous.
  - Agustus 9y ago
    I don't know why the public should be forced to have a reduction in public services because the public sector rolled over political interests to their favor.
    - deleted 9y ago
      [deleted]
  - eldavido 9y ago
    Look, obviously you and I have pretty different ideology, I get that. But I think you should consider why union membership is declining in the US. It's not some giant right-wing conspiracy. It's because the structure of industry is changing, firms are getting smaller, and the overall economy is getting more competitive. It's not like all the employees just decided, hey, we should all voluntarily decide to take a worse deal, great idea, let's do it. What upsets me as a taxpayer is why this same thing doesn't apply in the public sector. Like, I get that teachers work hard, but if we paid by outcomes, the way any sane private-sector company does, half of teachers would just get fired. Look at any major big-city school district if you want to see the mediocrity in action, whether Chicago Public Schools (CPS), Oakland Unified, etc. So yeah, it seems a little unfair that one sector of the economy gets paid for being mediocre at best, and other fires people and demands performance. Yeah, I'm a little upset.
    - toomuchtodo 9y ago
      I can appreciate we have different viewpoints. I can appreciate that, as a taxpayer, you’re upset. I also see the issues with institutions like CPS (having lived in Chicago proper). I don't believe paying teachers for outcomes when outcomes are primarily driven by influences outside of a teacher's control [1], but that is a discussion for another thread. I don’t think it’s a secret I’m hard to the left. People first. That’s how empathy works, economic efficiency be damned. Are there issues with how pension systems are gamed? Certainly, and fixes need to be put in place (benefit systems should never have the capacity to be gamed). Should public sector workers have reduced benefits or salaries because the American public has allowed their representatives to hand all the gains to Corporate America? Absolutely not. We have slowly, over decades, mortgaged the future (at local, state, and federal levels, speaking specifically about the US). The bills are coming due, and everyone is surprisingly shocked. I can’t tell you what to do, but I have gotten involved in politics and intend to contribute to a solution. I encourage you to do the same. [1] https://www.mckinsey.com/industries/social-sector/our-insights/drivers-of-student-performance-insights-from-north-america https://www.mckinsey.com/industries/social-sector/our-insigh...
      - eldavido 9y ago
xienze 9y ago
It’s a pension, you don’t have to live in the city to collect it. And a lot of those CA pensions are along the lines of “85% of your average salary over your last three years”, so guess what happens? Get a transfer to SF or LA and juice your average by doing ungodly amounts of overtime. Then fuck off and retire somewhere cheap pulling in 100k+ until you die. Pretty sweet setup, but local and state municipalities are screwed.
bassman9000 9y ago
http://sfdhr.org/benefits-overview http://sfdhr.org/benefits-overview https://mysfers.org/wp-content/uploads/Plan-Provisions-Misc-603.pdf https://mysfers.org/wp-content/uploads/Plan-Provisions-Misc-... Working 20y covers 100% health benefits when retiring. Working 20y allows you to retire at 53. Pension calculated averaging only the 3 best years. Regarding Do we just expect government employees to not be able to live in the city they work? Do they have more right than others to live in the city they work in? Because thousands commute to SF every day because they can't afford it. edit: formatting
david38 9y ago
I work in SF. There is no requirement I be able to afford to live there. Do no, I don't expect the employees to necessarily be able to live there. Ferrari mechanics cannot afford Ferraris. Stanford regular employees cannot afford to send their kids there, etc. So what?

anameaname 9y ago

It will change as SF's credit goes down the tubes. Unlike the federal government, there is a chance that SF could default on its loans. If they can't get a loan and they squeeze the rich out of the city, there won't be any money left.

deleted 9y ago
[deleted]

eldavido 9y ago

Just because it's promised doesn't mean it'll happen. Look at Illinois.